It's time for another week in review. This was decidedly the Snow Leopard week, but we also talked a lot about Linux, Psystar, and even SCO resurrected from the dead to continue its litigation about UNIX.

Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?

It isn't Open Source or the freaking license that makes a UI bad. However there other usually has just rather poor overall management compared to the other 2 big OS's.

Even the best Open Source projects are usually managed as such.
Lead Developer who is project managing the other developers. The developers are more or less fighting their egos and the best person wins.

Good Commercial Development is much more advanced. First we have a huge element of managers and bosses who may not be use to the technology the same way you do. They can look at an app and because they are the boss and are paying the money for your success. Will openly go to you and point out where the problems are, then you discuss how to fix it. And more and more not programming until you come with a rather well polished solution. As the software developer this is very annoying to have my creative drive knocked down a peg for everything I try. Plus it is frustrating all these attention, to stupid details that really isn't a key issue to development. But the MBA in me sees how this makes a better product. Then we work back and forth to come up with the best interface. It isn't best Idea that wins but taking the good ideas of the team and building on them. It MBA it comes down to the most overused and Stupid Sounding words "Synergy" or where a good team has an additive effect of the people.

Open Source has more of a Group Model where a bunch of ideas go across and the Project Manager will choose the Best Idea. But no Synergy will happen.

The FSF really needs new management. It has been getting more and more negative. It is making me feel like every day like it is an evangelical religious group. Where there is once statement of how God/Free Software is great and the rest touting the Evils of the world and you should Repent/Use Open Source Software.

FSF should really focus on encouraging open source development and making it viable for business and working with adding good business models uses of open source. Not just restricting it to support. As well treating your adversaries with some respect and finding common grounds. Being Anti-This and Anti-That does help to get a vocal group however overall it doesn't accomplishes anything.

FSF should really focus on encouraging open source development and making it viable for business and working with adding good business models uses of open source.

Meanwhile, the FSF's chief maniac, Richard Stallman, is busy trying to widen the schism in the community, which he invented, between so-called Free Software and so-called Open Source software. (Richard would take strong issue with you associating him with Open Source.)

The FSF attacks anything at all that it perceives as non-self, even if the actual difference is insignificant to nonexistent.

The FSF has become counterproductive and maladaptive.

And it is time for more of us to speak out against that festering and hateful organization which claims to speak for us.

Meanwhile, the FSF's chief maniac, Richard Stallman, is busy trying to widen the schism in the community, which he invented, between so-called Free Software and so-called Open Source software.

No. The pioneers of the Open Source term (not Stallman) invented it specifically to appeal more to big business. They did this by avoiding possible negative connotations of the word "free" in Free Software, and by emphasizing the software's utility rather than its freedom.

The OSI invented the term Open Source, which was intended only as another way to refer to the same thing and the same community. Richard Stallman "invented" the *schism* where none actually existed, and then patiently kept chipping away at every opportunity until he had actually created one.

Regardless of what he might or might not have done long ago, lost in the mists of time... in recent years, RMS has probably done more harm to the cause than Gates, Ballmer, and MrBride put together.

The OSI invented the term Open Source, which was intended only as another way to refer to the same thing and the same community. Richard Stallman "invented" the *schism* where none actually existed, and then patiently kept chipping away at every opportunity until he had actually created one.

Regardless of what he might or might not have done long ago, lost in the mists of time... in recent years, RMS has probably done more harm to the cause than Gates, Ballmer, and MrBride put together.

Actually it wouldn't be the same community; OSI covers a lot more than just what Stallman covers. Stallman has the my or highway approach where his view is that the FSF is the only viable option for the long term. OSI wanted a term that encompassed not just FSF licensed projects but all projects which have OSI approved licenses; which is why it isn't the same thing as FSF.

So they did not invent the term , witch was used to describe UNIX and BSD , they coined it's implication as a development model.

Richard Stallman "invented" the *schism*

" in Michael Tiemann's words, to "dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with 'free software' in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape"

And it's Eric Raymond who almost every year declare " we don't need the GPL , or , do we really still need the GPL. ? "

The FSF , speak about and for Free Software.

What you , and your kins don't get is that alone Open Source as never been a be all and working solution in itself. Otherwise it Would have worked with UNIX and BSD.

But then again Free Software , without Open Source as one of it's minor quality , make it flawed and incomplete.

Open Source Trojan horsed UNIX.
Open Source Trojan horsed BSD.

And it's Stallman , the FSF and the GPL who's done more harm , who >>invented<< the "schism"...

What you , and your kins don't get is that alone Open Source as never been a be all and working solution in itself. Otherwise it Would have worked with UNIX and BSD.

There are a whole lot more factors to consider than the license. For instance, BSD was the subject-matter of the AT&T vs BSDi lawsuit that set it back for some time. At the same time Linux captured the minds of a growing group of developers. Besides that PR and community attitude also helps. Is Windows the most popular operating system because it has the best license? No, Microsoft knows how to do PR, conduct business, etc. Apple is also a whole lot better at it (with a partially BSD codebase), leaving both Linux and freeish BSDs in the dust (yes, I know that Darwin is also open source software).

Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.

Meanwhile, the FSF's chief maniac, Richard Stallman, is busy trying to widen the schism in the community, which he invented, between so-called Free Software and so-called Open Source software. (Richard would take strong issue with you associating him with Open Source.)

The FSF attacks anything at all that it perceives as non-self, even if the actual difference is insignificant to nonexistent.

The FSF has become counterproductive and maladaptive.

And it is time for more of us to speak out against that festering and hateful organization which claims to speak for us.

The worse part about Richard Stallman is that he puts himself up as a 'leader' and yet me provides no vision what so ever - just broad sweeping statements loaded with misdirected attacks against those whom he considers 'enemies of liberty' (as if he see's himself as a modern day Paul Revere).

He bashes Windows 7 but where is his coordinated vision for a FSF alternative to Windows? a top to bottom drop in replacement for not just Windows but the applications that sit upon Windows which end users rely on every day. Where is his vision? where is his plan? where is the effort to coordinate the disparate projects so that they work towards a common goal?

Richard Stallman reminds me of the old geiser who sits in the corner of the pub ranting and raving about 'kids these days' and how 'back in my days...' - he contributes nothing constructive and on the rare occasions he gets up he starts sounding like a bumbling fool high on turps whose contribution recently to this 'vision' has been sweet bugger all; devotee's of course will point to 'past glories' but ignore the fact that he has contributed nothing recently.

> The worse part about Richard Stallman is that he puts himself up as a 'leader' and yet me provides no vision what so ever - just broad sweeping statements loaded with misdirected attacks against those whom he considers 'enemies of liberty' (as if he see's himself as a modern day Paul Revere).

Bullshit. The guy is a activist and he beleives in what he beleives in. He has never asked anybody to do anything that he has not already done himself.

He is massively smart and has accurately predicted many things and has been proven right when everybody else was telling him he was wrong.

His major fault is that he has a very very specific viewpoint and is hard edged in the way he speaks and approaches people. He tells them what to do and tells them they are wrong when he thinks they are wrong. That sort of behavior tends to piss off a lot of people.

It's one thing to dissagree with somebody, it's quite another talk about the thoughts and feelings of another person when you have obviously no clue about what he has actually accomplished, said, or done.

-------------------------

For much of the early history of Linux vs BSD the BSD operating systems were plainly and obviously superior to Linux in almost every way. They were more stable, more feature complete, and had a much more established history.

However it was Linux that attracted the attention and garnered the support of people like IBM and have made Redhat wealthy and successful.

There originally a push for commercial BSD variants, like BSDi.

You know what happens?

Microsoft takes OpenBSD userland and ports it to POSIX side of NT. Yes the NT kernel is very technologically advanced, much more so then XNU kernel used in OS X which is pathetic in comparison (in terms of sophistication, performance, and usability). The NT kernel can take on many different APIs. The API that you use when you use 'Windows' is the Win32 API (since renamed to reflect it's 64bit-ness. However NT also supports POSIX. So for Microsoft's Services For Unix, they took OpenBSD and ported it to NT, for much of the userland and whatnot.

What did OpenBSD get back from it? Nothing.

Microsoft also took the BSD TCP/IP stack and used it to form the basis of it's TCP stacks for early versions of NT and Windows 9x. (Since then it's obviously been heavily worked over). If you know anything about Unix and anything about NT networking you'd quickly notice that there are some oddities.

Did you ever think that it was funny to use a etc directory in Windows?
c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

And what about companies that have improved BSD's performance in realtime situations and have used it in embedded devices and multimedia set top boxes and whatnot? Did FreeBSD or anybody else ever get anything back with that?

Nope.

Linux uses the GPL. When companies want to use Linux in a commercial setting they know that they can contribute code back to projects and not have to worry about their competitors taking that code and using improvements that they can't use.

With BSD license there is no such assurances. If you release code under BSD license and your trying to compete against Microsoft then Microsoft will just take that code, dump 30 million dollars into developing on it, and drive you out of business.

People go on and on about how GPL is so unfriendly to corporations, when in fact it's one of the best things that has ever happenned for commercial open source software!

RMS's concepts of 'Copyleft' and his GPL license is how people are able to make software to compete against companies like Microsoft and stay in business. distributed development of software is much more effective, cheaper, and much more efficient then traditional closed source approaches.

And before you point out Apple you need to realize two things:

1. Microsoft is the #1 producer of OS X compatible software.
2. Microsoft saved Apple from bankrupcy by buying a 150 million dollars in 1997. If it wasn't for Microsoft then OS X would of died in development.

Bullshit. The guy is a activist and he beleives in what he beleives in. He has never asked anybody to do anything that he has not already done himself.

And what has he achieved? over 20 years since the starting of FSF and they're still no closer to developing a drop in replacement for the average user to embrace as a desktop operating system. They still have failed to step up and provide drop in replacements for the many desktop applications end users rely on.

You can be an activist all you want but in the end you end up sounding like some libertarian jack ass who spends all their time chatting about theoreticals and no attempt to actually putting theory in action. He has talked and talked and talked and talked for 20 years and what is there to show for it - where is the massive selection of easy to use desktop applications from the FSF that are a drop replacement for commercial applications? where is this easy to use desktop operating system? everything so far from FSF relating to the desktop sucks - and it sucks on a scale only matched hollywoods vacuous films relating to historical re-enactments.

He is massively smart and has accurately predicted many things and has been proven right when everybody else was telling him he was wrong.

What has he predicted? the fact that for 20 years they haven't achieved a single damn thing worthy of placing a parallel alternative to the commercial world? the fact that people look at GIMP and can't help by laugh at those who make the pathetic stance that it can replace Photoshop? the same drips who ramble on and on about OpenOffice.org but never actually use an Office suite beyond a strongly worded letter to the local news paper editor?

His major fault is that he has a very very specific viewpoint and is hard edged in the way he speaks and approaches people. He tells them what to do and tells them they are wrong when he thinks they are wrong. That sort of behavior tends to piss off a lot of people.

Nothing to do with that; he can rant and rave all he likes if he actually bloody accomplished something. Until he has accomplished something akin to the product he is raging against, namely, Windows 7, he is going to be viewed as an out of touch lunatic suffering from the tall poppy syndrome.

It's one thing to disagree with somebody, it's quite another talk about the thoughts and feelings of another person when you have obviously no clue about what he has actually accomplished, said, or done.

Where is this FSF alternative to Windows 7 - come on smart ass, if you're going to write a tersely written critique of my post, show me the alternative to Windows 7 from the FSF which has equal or superior hardware support (I don't give a shit about yours or anyone elses anecdotal experiences, I'm talking about real numbers) and a selection of software that is easier to use and accomplish equal or more than the commercial counterparts.

The day when *THAT* happens will be the day I will sit down, shut up and keep my pie-hole shut. Until that day occurs, I'm quite within my rights to run roughshod over Stallman until such time he produces the goods.

" Eben Moglen (27 June 2003). "FSF Statement on SCO v IBM]". "SCO has used "Linux" to mean "all free software", or "all free software constituting a UNIX-like operating system." This confusion, which the Free Software Foundation warned against in the past, is here shown to have the misleading consequences the Foundation has often predicted" "

What have you predicted kaiwai ? Nothing as usual.

Me I predicted that Open Source would try and trojan horse GNU/Linux ... Just as it did with UNIX , BSD , MIT , etc ...

Where is this FSF alternative to Windows 7

Many GNU/Linux disributions ... Take your pick.

a selection of software that is easier to use and accomplish equal or more than the commercial counterparts.

The day when *THAT* happens will be the day I will sit down, shut up and keep my pie-hole shut.

No that's the day your gonna die , you have a tendency to switch favorite OS and target every witch blue moon.

It's not your ability to talk that is the problem , it's the nonsense that make no valid constructive point that you use to make with that ability.

You see saying something suck is easy. lumping everyone togheter and making a lying generalization without offering any real point is easy.

-----

I am sorry , and appoligize for it , that Stallman don't meet your crazy expectations and demands.

I am sorry GNU/Linux and appoligize for it , don't meet your imaginary needs and wants of proprietary software from commercial entity who are the one refusing to port them to GNU/Linux.

I am sorry that the project Free Software , Open Source and other don't meet your non existing fabulation of superiority from other un-named , non existing application that you claims are in windows 7 ...
and appoligize for it.

I feel nothing but pity for you. Because I know your sick , having seen people like you in the hospital I visit for charity/donation purpose. You will never be happy with what the world as to offer , until you get medicated and psy consultation to see what the problem really is.

Me ? I am a multi , I like all OS , I feel lucky to be living in a time where there are so many choice. I prefer Free Software for obvious and relastic and pragmatic and financial and economical reason , but I also apreciate the work put in the proprietary offers.

I would love for the hardware company and corporation to offer more choice of OS , but then I also realize that hardware buildinbg in istelf is extremly costly.
The OS maker also have a tendency to isolate and create undue pressure and demands on hardware maker.

Seem to me the real problem you have is more with yourself then with Stallman. Blaming others for your faith and place , is kinda of a self cop out. Everything of value take time and lots of work on your part to get and achieve.

I would like to assure everyone that Microsoft did not pay sbergman27 to make the preceding poast. I haven't seen him at any of our meetings and his name isn't on the payroll of our elite OSNews Astroturfing Ninja Attack Squad.

I would like to assure everyone that Microsoft did not pay sbergman27 to make the preceding poast. I haven't seen him at any of our meetings and his name isn't on the payroll of our elite OSNews Astroturfing Ninja Attack Squad.

Cisco VPN (the client) no longer works on Snow Leopard - but there's a built-in Cisco VPN client in Snow Leopard. Just that, I am sure for at least 60% of people using it, its near-useless. It doesn't accept *.PCF configuration files (with things like group name and group password).

And I haven't figured out how to configure Mail.app to my Exchange account. And little features that are missing that will throw any office worker into a fit of rage: for example, today I took a day off. But I can't set an out-of-office email without going to Outlook Web Access.

It's fast, responsive, I love the new Expose, and its worth the hundred ringgit I spend on it. But its Enterprise features needs some spit-and-polish.

I have gotten the e-mail and contacts to work with Snow Leopard from my Exchange 2007 server, but I have not gotten the calendar to work.

I can say that OWA is the best way to set up OOO replies and have them work 100% of the time.

I can tell you that you have to set your internal and external servers (which I do not have to do with Outlook 2007 or Entourage BTW) to be the same server, and that you also need to specify your user name as your username@<fully qualified domain name> , not just your username.

It's not 100%, and the synchronization takes a couple of hours (it is slower than Entourage 2004!), but it works.

PM me if you have any issues. I'm writing a doc for some of our internal users today talking about some of the issues, including the fact that Firefox randomly crashes in it, and that the Citrix XenApp client and Safari are not getting along well either.

I had VPN working, but it wasn't very userfriendly. PCF files has all the configuration information, including group name and group password - for me, the group password was encoded. (Decoding was a simple Google search away, but again, not very userfriendly - Apple could easily accept this.